Me, I'd like to see what their reaction would've been if they had left in the even more outlandish plot points that were in the novel, but left out of the film!
Sony has signed The Da Vinci Code screenwriter Akiva Goldsman to write the script. Ron Howard and Tom Hanks haven't signed on yet, but will get first option. This was Dan Brown's first Robert Langdon novel, which takes place in Italy a year before The Da Vinci Code.
I'm guessing they'll get either Monica Belluccci or Maria Grazia Cuccinotta to play Vittoria.
I can't wait to see what critics and reviewers and the Vatican say about this one. If they thought The Da Vinci Code was preposterous and cast them in a bad light, this one'll give 'em an aneurysm, as the resolution is particularly ridiculous, even though the book was very entertaining.
Hanks as Langdon again?
(Note: They refer to this story as a "sequel" to The Da Vinci Code, but the novel Angels & Demons actually came out first, and Da Vinci Code was the sequel. Then again, they could theoretically not mention that at all in the film version, and the story would be the same, since the Code story doesn't require any references to Angels, and IIRC, it only had one or so, which wasn't vital to the plot.)
Nice poster.
Set for May 2009.
I'm surprised that they managed to get Howard and Hanks to come back, given how The Da Vinci Code was received. And if Christians and Catholics were offended by that movie, they'll have a collective ANEURYSM when they learn the plot of Angels & Demons. Then again, the aspects I'm thinking of are not revealed until the end, so maybe it'll slide under the cultural radar, unless someone who read the book or is made aware of the entire plot raises a stink in the media.
Interestingly, they didn't go with Bellucci or Cuccinotta for Vittoria Vetra, but with an Israeli actress I've never heard of named Ayelet Zurer. Personally, I think Bellucci and Cuccinotta are prettier. There's a production shot of her and Hanks at the Wikipedia article.
Pope asks for Boycott.
Maybe he was more bored than offended by The DaVinci Code. As I was.
I knew it.
Although it's been a while since I read the book I thought the movie was pretty good, and better than it's predecessor on the big screen IMO. My knowledge in this area is not as good as it should be, and I missed the first five or so minutes, so I'll point out a few differences between the book and movie.
Most of what I noticed as far as differences occurred at the end: The final brand was not a combination of the four elements but of crossed keys; the forth Cardinal to be killed, in water, lived (he died in the book right?) so he was made Pope and the other guy his second in command; Langdon didn't go into the helicopter with the Camerlengo (apologies if that's spelled wrong); the head of the Swiss Guard gave Langdon a key to his surveillance system instead of a camcorder with a broken screen, which I liked better; and the real killer died in a car explosion instead of falling onto cannon balls. I'm sure I missed something, especially due to getting in late, but that's what stood out to me.
Aside from the obvious, killing Cardinals and playing around in the Vatican, I really didn't see much that should be considered offensive; actually I thought it was a good look inside Catholic traditions regarding the Vatican.
LN: Note: They refer to this story as a "sequel" to The Da Vinci Code... they could theoretically not mention that at all in the film version
I was aware which book came first, and was a better story IMHO, but I believe there was a subtle reference in this movie mentioning The Da Vinci Code. Someone, the head of the Swiss Guard I believe, talks about recent trouble with the church.
The guy who first meets with Langdon at the pool was the Vatican police, actually.
Well, you pretty much pointed out the most important changes. Having him save the life of that one Cardinal who later became Pope not only produced a feeling of hope in the viewer after three murders, but it allowed the Cardinal Grand Elector to make his observations without any appearance of a possible conflict of interest, since in the book, as I recall, he was the one who become Pope. It also creates a nice payoff, when the grateful Pope allows Langdon access to the Vatican Archival material needed for Langdon to finish his next book, which had thus been denied him. (In the book, it is Lieutenant Chartrand who merely loans him the Illuminati Diamond.) The final scene between Langdon and the Grand Elector, and the final moment when the new Pope went out to great his followers were a nice scene. It was definitely a better note on which to end the story than the superficial romance between Langdon and Vittoria Vetra.
And although Angels & Demons came first, it's presented as a sequel to The Da Vinci Code here, as the events in that story are referenced.
In the book, Langdon is summoned to CERN, to which he is taken on an X-33 plane, and where he meets the director, Maximilian Kohler, who is absent from the film. I think this was not only done to streamline the story's running time, but it has the added benefit of not having yet another crippled benefactor/possible villain, which after The Da Vinci Code's Leigh Teabing, might seem repetitive. And the X-33 was simply outlandish and unnecessary. Thank God they got rid of it.
Langdon explains to the Vatican policeman that ambigrams read the same "forward and back". I think he meant to say "upside down and right side up."
Vittoria's father was named Leonardo in the book. Why did they change it to Silvano? Did they think it too much of a reminder of the previous book?
The Camerlengo in the book was named Carlo Ventresca, but his name was changed to Patrick in the movie, no doubt to accomodate actor Ewan McGregor's ethnicity.
I can't recall if this is in the book, but antimatter is referred to as the "God particle" in the film, and said to be what gives matter mass. This is not true.
The Assassin's ethnicity is also changed from Arabic to Caucasian/European, and his kidnapping and attempted rape/murder of Vittoria is dropped, as his his confrontation with Langdon, which in the book, ended with him falling to his death atop a pile of cannonballs at the Castle of Saint Angelo. In the movie, he is car-bombed. As touched upon before, so was his earlier confrontation with Langdon at the Fountain of the Four Rivers, during which he used the air tube to save himself. In the film, it's how he saves the Cardinal. I also don't recall him receiving payments in an Isle of Mann account in the book, since his assassinations were vocational and personal, not a job.
I thought omitting the final ambigram was unfortunate, since I thought that how real-life artist John Langdon, who created the ambigrams for the book, got all four elements into a diamond-shaped ambigram was really cool.
Kudos also to them getting rid of Langdon being on the copter and using a makeshift parachute to land safely on an island with miraculous healing powers.
Another compliment is for getting rid of the preposterous soap opera-like twist of the Camerlengo being the late Pope's biological son. It's not only unnecessary and melodramatic, but it supposedly hinged on the Pope becoming a father without breaking his vows, using artificial insemination. Apparently Dan Brown didn't consider that do this, the Pope would have to "pleasure himself" to provide a sample of his genetic material, which is a sin under Church beliefs.
I flinched when some of the artwork in the Vatican was destroyed by the antimatter explosion. I know I've long been a fan of Leonardo and Michelangelo, but I didn't realize I would have that reaction.
Btw, was I the only one who thought that the way the clouds were lit following the explosion was meant to evoke the painting of the Sistine Chapel?
How can Ron Howard make such a bad movie after making the brilliant "Frost/Nixon"?
Every good actor, writer or director at one time or another makes a bad film.
I take it you didn't like this film?
I read the reviews. I don't need to see it
Well then, in answer to your question, it seems that critics' main problem, as seen from their reaction to the previous film and this one, is with Dan Brown's writing.
Me, I'd like to see what their reaction would've been if they had left in the even more outlandish plot points that were in the novel, but left out of the film!
If they want to make a movie about the "dark secrets" of the Catholic Church, then they should make a movie which shows the beliefs of the Catholic Church versus what the Bible says.
Trust me...there are BIG differences.
I just learned from the History Channel documentary Angels & Demons Decoded that the Higgs boson particle is what is nicknamed "the God particle". But I don't recall hearing the Higgs boson mentioned in the dialogue I referenced above, as I was certain it was antimatter they were talking about. Did I hear wrong, and they indeed mentioned Higgs boson at some point?
Just saw it and they did indeed call antimatter the 'god particle' and said that it gives things mass. There's about five things wrong with that, which just goes to show that they can remove most of the truly godawful stuff from the novel and still find a way to make new material that's almost as insultingly stupid.
Of course, there's also the bit where we're told the LHC isn't designed to make antimatter when in fact it does it all the time and yes, it's meant to create the stuff. The movie also keeps the ridiculously large amount of the stuff and massively reduces the destruction caused by the same.
Another thing I noticed: It apparently gets dark really late in Italy but when it does, it's fast. In fact, it goes from nearly full daylight to darkness right between shots.
Also, while I can understand why they changed the assassin's ethnicity, that and omitting any backstory for him makes him about the blankest killer in cinema history. His changed death also raises another question: How the hell did the Camerlengo manage to rig up the car bomb that killed him and get it to that location at a time when he would have been watched like a hawk?
However, let it never be said that I won't give credit where it's due. Aside from removing the worst offenders, the movie also corrected a great injustice: The page that Langdon steals does not get destroyed in the end. It makes no difference to the story but I always hate to see knowledge destroyed, even if it's entirely fictional.
An antimatter explosion at such close range would have exposed everyone in Saint Peter's Square to a lethal dose of gamma rays. All of these people, including Langdon, Vittoria and, most of all, the Camerlengo, who was closer to the explosion than anyone else, are soon going to die of an accute case of radiation sickness. A great number of pleople in Rome and Vatican City will also die, or be very sick.